I have been chairman of a daffodil school now for three years and we have been teaching the student judges some changes in the way judging is conducted;
1. Positive judging without a system to tell judges what that is. I like the system on daffnet that the California guys were doing.
2. Uniformity for 3 stem classes.
3. +90 Rules for student judges entering in collections of five, etc.
Yet when I’m on the floor in a panel with other judges, they, by the large have never heard of the concepts.
Shouldn’t judges refresher’s include some of the updated concepts for judging, if nothing else but a preamble to the judges refresher before the instructor goes off tilting windmills in Spain and/or southern France. (For those people that I insulted, I apologize.)
It seems like we need to try harder to get all the judges on the “same sheet of music?” Just a question. Does anyone else have any thoughts on the subject.
Clay
Clay,
I like what I think you’re saying, and would appreciate having you provide some amplification on each of the points. I feel this is a very important topic, and that broader discussion of it would benefit the daffodil community in the US significantly.
Melissa
Clay,
Probably I should not comment on judging in America but i hope what you mean by positive judging is that the merits of a bloom should be considered before the faults – accordingly i think it is important to stand well back from a class of blooms before burrowing in to look for specks of dirt of nicks – this way the impressive meritorious blooms are usually immmediatly obvious.
Brian
Hi Folks,
I hope we are not getting confused between countries here. I have been advocating what I have called ‘positive judging’ here in New Zealand. We have evolved a judging method over the years where we look at the flowers then eliminate lesser flowers from the bottom up thus ending with the best flower which wins first prize. To me this was very time consuming. I call this ‘negative judging.’ I have seen times when eliminated flowers are better than the final selection and the judges are not prepared to go back and reconsider them because they have already been rejected.
In observing senior judges picking the premier blooms I believe they have decided their best bloom, or collection, within seconds of looking at the flowers. I then encourage the judges to take that flower and compare it with every bloom in the class, asking the question ‘Is there any reason why this flower should not be given first prize?” The original decision is sometimes changed when previously un-noticed faults become obvious but usually the first, quick observation is proved correct. In fairness to exhibitors all entries must be looked at in this process. As this process occurs the second and third prize getters also become obvious and the job is done in far less time. I also believe that more accurate decisions are made. To me this is positive judging. We pick the best first.
Having judged with many ADS members I think that they already judge closer to this positive method than we do here. This is based on the assumption that we are both using the term ‘positive’ in the same way.
Dave
I have enjoyed all the comments so far. It generally means here in America that the best flower should win. And it seems that our best judges are the ones that always end up on panels with our visiting judges, and vice versa when Americans are included in judging in countries afar.
However, the question about positive judging seems to be thrown out when we are judging collections. No one wants to get down to scoring the blooms and seeing which collection has the most points. i.e. do we want to give 1st place to a collection of daffodils that are 92 across the board, or give it to the collection of five that has 4 daffodils that are 98 and one that is a 90. In most cases the collections with the low scoring daffodil loses regardless of how good the other daffodils are. Positive judging would be giving the best daffodils the ribbons. I’ve seen a system used by the west coast judges that gives a score to one daffodil in a collection and all other daffodils, and those in a other collections in the same class are also compared and a score given each collection. I like that as the best daffodils win.
Melissa,
I just talked about the first point on positive judging.
The second point is on uniformity of the 3 stems classes. It seems that we have had to emphasis the condition of uniformity on all our Judging school classes with an emphasis on blooms being the same size, but when on a panel on the show floor, uniformity is not given much consideration. Quiet honestly, I win a lot of 3 stem classes and I don’t worry much about size of the daffodils as I learned from some old heads years ago to make sure the color is uniform, and staging takes care of everything else. Of course to do 3 stem classes you have to grow a lot of daffodils.
On the last point of the 90+ for student judges. Student judges originally had to win a minimum of a collection of five to qualify to become an accredited judge. That was never my problem, I won a Gold Quinn before I started judging school. I did not like it when the rule for student judges was changed to 90+ instead of an outright win. If a student judge is competing in a collection class and does not win the 1st place ribbon, he can get the judges to write on his entry card that the collection scored a 90+ the student judge can use that 90+ instead of a 1st place ribbon to qualify as a accredit judge.
Sorry about such a long post. I have to get ready for Judging School III and our own show starts tomorrow.
Clay
Clay, you surely remember the expression, “A Bill Pannill Red’ as something to brag about, coming in second to one of the great hybridizers. The Board, after a long and thoughtful discussion a few years ago, gave some much needed relief. It’s not just “getting some judge to write 90+”. The show chair notifies a panel that a particular five-stem class included an entry by a student judge and therefore all the entries would be point-scored. More work for the judges, but isn’t our future worth it?
Loyce McKenzie
Having been Judging Chairman for some time I remember that one of the reasons “positive”came up was to stop judges from putting personal opinions on flowers during judging, like “I don’t like this one”, I like this one better”, “I never liked splits”, etc. It was to give the exhibitor credit for growing what he/she t hought was a good flower. I believe alot of these comments have stopped now. I do like the Wests way of judging collections, the panel agrees on what looks like the worst daffodil in the collection and point scores that flower and then compares it to the others. The judging goes quickly and is usually a clear case of picking the best collection. The other points Clay makes should be taught in all judging schools.
When I was taking School I, in Portland in 2000, I had a super group of instructors: Ruth Pardue, Richard Ezell, and Nancy Gill. One of them–I think it was Richard–said, “The way to judge a collection is to stand back ten feet, see which one looks best, and then go up close and see if there’s a reason why it should not win.”
Works for me!
Loyce
All,
Thank you for your comments. I thing most though the concepts were good. Now we only have to get all the judges updated. . . somehow.
Loyce, I want to respond to you specifically on “Pannill Blues.” I’m in the same mid-altantic states that Bill Pannill showed his daffodils. In my second year of showing I went to a daffodil show with hundred of flowers and with High Hopes in my thoughts. Bill Pannill sit at the next table to me in the staging room. He was such a nice guy that I have always admired him since them. However at that show was when I started getting my Pannill Blues. Bill got the Silver Ribbon for the most blue ribbons in a show and if there was a RIBBON for the most RED I would have won that one. I think for every First Place Blue Pannill got I got the Red second, from the Quinn right on down. That continued when Bill was at a show until he slowed down his showing. Bill Pannill always the gentleman, and I miss his competition at the shows.
But I still think new judges should “Win” a blue ribbon in a collection. I did, by finding something that Bill didn’t enter. :-)
Clay
Clay, there are no perfect solutions to problems in a diverse set of circumstances. I was at the board meeting that thoroughly and thoughtfully considered the problem and decided on the present rule. The reaction was based not just on “I earned mine the hard way; now you go and do the same.,” but on what was best for the future of the ADS. (I know you are concerned about that because you would not otherwise have worked so hard to provide the complete series of judging schools.)
There’s a disparity in our country. You compete (and do a fine job of providing opportuniies for new judges to earn their credits) in a judge-rich, show-rich area. Look at the judges’ roster for Middle Atlantic + Northeast–probably more than a third of all the ADS judges, and what’s more, shows galore. A persistent exhiitor could (and some have) enter six, seven, or more shows a season.)
I live in the middle of the country, where judges are comparatively scarce, and are treasured, and the new ones that appear are nurtured and welcomed. Our whole region, in a very good year, has four shows–never two on the same weekend, and one per state. And rather few of us,especially the newer ones, have a vast collection of daffodils–yet. And they never will, if they are discouraged for three, four, five years from getting accredited by just one requirement.
In the Pacific Region, they have maybe six shows–and the travel distances are vast, and the usual competitors are great hybridizers, with an extensive roster of flowers.
Something needed to be done, and that Board chose what it believed was the fairest and most workable solution.
If our present judges do their jobs, and I believe they do, they evaluate every collection in an indicated class (and they have to point-score the entire class, not just one pointed out to them as “student judge.”) Let the newer ones know they had blue-ribbon quality, and they will stay around and progress to checking out the competition for “open” spots.
Loyce,
It seems like we are having a conversation in front of the world. You said that the Mid-Atlantic states have more than half the judges and shows. My opinion is that these same Mid-Atlantic judges are the ones that are not on daffnet and have not kept up with the times. It’s too bad that they can’t be updated at judging refreshers.
I worry about the future of the Daffodil Society when the new judges are accepted with lesser qualifications, and many of them are really doing it for the social experience and are not into “Daffodils.” Many of them do not even attempt to grow and maintain 100 + daffodils after they get accredited and don’t know the daffodils that they are judging.
I’m sorry I have to get off this line and just accept the judges as what they are, and do my best at my growing and showing of daffodils.
You know that we had our daffodil show today in Barco, and Ceci Brown gave me quiet a run for the show champion. However, doesn’t it get to you when you win both the Red White and Blue ribbon, including the miniature Red White and Blue with your own seedlings, and then have two of the final three daffodils standing for best in show be your own seedlings and then have them lose the best in show to your Magic Lantern 1Y-0. What a daffodil.
That’s what I enjoy, the hybridizing of daffodils, the showing and growing them. I have considered giving up judging all together.
Clay